Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is objective and subjective morality? I don't understand the difference. The way I look at it, what we should call "morally right" behavior (by which I mean that which should be done) is rooted in increasing pleasure and decreasing suffering in some way.
I can't think of why anyone or anything would disagree that pleasure should be increased and suffering should be decreased, so would that be a form of objective morality?
However, things become considerably trickier when we think about just what that means. Who or what should experience those increases of pleasure and decreases of suffering? But regardless of who it is, someone or something must always experience a decrease of suffering or an increase of pleasure or else the act could not sensibly be described as morally right.
Would that foundation, that fact that all sensible moral codes must increase pleasure or reduce suffering for something be objective morality? if not, why not?
Oftentimes people's first complaint against the idea that morality is objective is that morality can't be objective because everybody disagrees on what is right and wrong. I don't understand the point of such an objection. If something is objectively morally right, wouldn't that be right no matter what anyone's opinion about it is?
I'm becoming more and more confused and irritated by the terms "subjective morality" and "objective morality."
Objective morality often seems to be associated with arguments that a god exists, which never make any sense to me. Subjective morality sometimes seems to be associated with moral nihilism, which doesn't make any sense to me either.
Confucius visited Lao Tse once.
Confucius was the greatest legalist known to mankind. 1300 rules on behavior. On what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Hence, he wanted to drink off Lao Tse's wisdom and determine once and forever, what is right and what is wrong.
When they met, Confucius asked - please, tell me, what is right and what is wrong?
Lao Tse responded: Neither. That is differentiation, and I do not differentiate. To me, any differentiation is impure.
Canfucius was aghast.
But how can you build society on this? How can you tell people how to be good?
Lao Tse smiled and said - One has no right to tell anyone how to be. Let people be there own way.
That shocked Confucius even more!
But then there will be no order, he exclaimed!
To what Lao Tse responded: World is, and by virtue of being, it is in order. Order is inherent to it and to each one of its parts, people included. Who are you to tell anyone about order?
Shocked, Confucius left. He returned to his place and could not sleep for nights. Finally, one of his disciples approached him and asked: What did Lao Tse tell you, Teacher?
To what Confucius sighed: He is the most dangerous man I know! He is a dragon! If you ever come to a place where they mention him - run away from there!
There is no subjective and objective morality. Inherently. What you referring to is, partially, projections of your inhibitions into the world and, partially, society upbringing speaking in you. Somewhere deep deep inside, there is true You, that is not part of any of it. That true You is never satisfied with societal norms and concepts, as it is not of this world, though bound to it.
So true search should not be on the path of differentiation, path of duality. True path should be - what am I? As when you find your-Self, all those questions crumble and vanish....
Objective morality generally refer to moral maxims that are supposed to be fixed for all time that are independent of all conditions.
Subjective morality relates to moral maxims that are flexible and are relation to some conditions.
From the above, objective morality is normally related to morality from a God because whatever Moral Maxims dictated by an all powerful, all knowing God is supposed to be supreme and cannot be changed (immutable). Such a morality that do not take into account relative conditions is problematic and has caused a lot of problems and sufferings to individuals.
From another perspective, objective morality can also be established by reason and such are the theoretical ideals. These ideals has limits in practice.
Subjective morality has its advantage in adapting to changing conditions but it becomes problematic when the changes are not modulated and anything goes.
Theistic objective morality may have some values at present but they should be weaned off in the near future due to its rigidity to cope with changing conditions.
What I find most effective is to marry and synchronized objective-morality-via-reason with subjective morality [ethics]. This will work very well in practice.
Objective implies that there is a list 'out there' of good and bad and it applies equally to all people regardless of what they think.
Obviously, that is ridiculous. That leaves us with subjective. What does this mean? Humans (and other animals) have evolved with what we call 'morality'. This morality evolved because it benefited the species, however, it is found within the species and not without. So.... each individual human will have their own take on what is moral and some will lack a moral code all together (psychopaths).
What is objective and subjective morality? I don't understand the difference. The way I look at it, what we should call "morally right" behavior (by which I mean that which should be done) is rooted in increasing pleasure and decreasing suffering in some way.
I can't think of why anyone or anything would disagree that pleasure should be increased and suffering should be decreased, so would that be a form of objective morality?
However, things become considerably trickier when we think about just what that means. Who or what should experience those increases of pleasure and decreases of suffering? But regardless of who it is, someone or something must always experience a decrease of suffering or an increase of pleasure or else the act could not sensibly be described as morally right.
Would that foundation, that fact that all sensible moral codes must increase pleasure or reduce suffering for something be objective morality? if not, why not?
Oftentimes people's first complaint against the idea that morality is objective is that morality can't be objective because everybody disagrees on what is right and wrong. I don't understand the point of such an objection. If something is objectively morally right, wouldn't that be right no matter what anyone's opinion about it is?
I'm becoming more and more confused and irritated by the terms "subjective morality" and "objective morality."
Objective morality often seems to be associated with arguments that a god exists, which never make any sense to me. Subjective morality sometimes seems to be associated with moral nihilism, which doesn't make any sense to me either.
Generally objective morality is morality rooted in a universal moral principle, while subjective morality is morality rooted in one's opinion regarding whether something is right or wrong.
Generally objective morality is morality rooted in a universal moral principle, while subjective morality is morality rooted in one's opinion regarding whether something is right or wrong.
Care to elaborate, please? As universe has no such thing. MOF, there is no morality in universe. There is no language in universe to verbalize it also. Universe simply is as it is. Everything on the nature side is as it is.
It's on the intelligence side, particularly, in humanity, where "morality" appears. All "morality" is subjective, it does not exist objectively. Humans sit on their buttocks and ponder over their opinions about universe, imagining all kinds of pseudo universal laws. God must have heck of anecdotes coming in human thoughts.
Objective morality is said to come from religion. Religion is politics. Spirituality is something different. An act of love, an unselfish act, a giving without being calculative, grace - atheist, agnostics, religious people, spiritual people, "spiritual people" all see something.
White wash a gem or a rotting wood. Is the gem still there? Is the rotting wood still beneath the white?
The surface is calm, the layers within may not be. Subjective morality to means touching the surface. We don't go deeper, to where it counts. Of course it is all subjective then because no one wants to talk about what is really ailing.
The placid, serene lake filled with all forms of life. Hedonism is a philosophy. Does it seem like wine then turns to turd?
Have you ever chased one dream and got it all to find yourself completely bereft and empty? Void like?
Have you ever given up so much, endured trials and more and found a quiet solace? An inner joy?
Which is more real? That which is inside or that which is outside? Dare I call one subjective and one objective? Because one does not have regrets and another path looks like life but leads to death?
Peel off the mask and see what lies in the heart. We can't see our own hearts but we can see beneath the masks.
Care to elaborate, please? As universe has no such thing. MOF, there is no morality in universe. There is no language in universe to verbalize it also. Universe simply is as it is. Everything on the nature side is as it is.
It's on the intelligence side, particularly, in humanity, where "morality" appears. All "morality" is subjective, it does not exist objectively. Humans sit on their buttocks and ponder over their opinions about universe, imagining all kinds of pseudo universal laws. God must have heck of anecdotes coming in human thoughts.
A universal moral principle is simply one that applies regardless of circumstances, opinion, or particular cultural norms. For example, "acting in consideration only of oneself is morally inferior to acting in consideration of both oneself and others, all else equal, when both are possible."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
